Artificial intelligence is often discussed as a technological revolution, an economic opportunity, or a geopolitical arms race. Yet these interpretations, while valid, fail to grasp the deeper nature of the transformation now unfolding. The rise of AI is not simply about smarter machines. It is about the gradual redefinition of reality, agency, and ultimately the human person itself.
The central question of the AI age is therefore not whether machines can think. It is whether human beings will continue to think in a meaningful sense at all.
This is not merely a technical issue. It is a philosophical, civilizational, and political problem—one that touches the foundations of sovereignty, freedom, and human dignity.
Technology as Destiny
The German philosopher Martin Heidegger warned decades ago1 that modern technology should not be understood merely as a collection of tools. Technology, he argued, is a way through which reality discloses itself to humanity. For the ancient Greeks, techné did not simply mean technical efficiency or mechanical production, but poiésis: a form of ‘bringing-forth’ through which truth gradually emerged into the world. The craftsman, the builder, and the poet all participated in this process of revealing.
Modern technology, however, no longer operates as poiésis. Heidegger described its logic as Gestell—‘enframing’—a mode of ordering reality in which nature, culture, and ultimately even human beings appear primarily as Bestand: standing reserve, resources to be ordered, calibrated, and rendered permanently available for functional use.
This distinction is crucial for understanding the deeper logic of the AI age. Once reality is approached primarily through optimization and control, transformation becomes inevitable: human beings come to appear as data profiles to be predicted and managed; nature becomes a reservoir of extractable resources; culture dissolves into algorithmically generated content streams; and thought itself risks being reduced to computational anticipation.
The danger, from Heidegger’s perspective, is not merely that machines become more intelligent, but that human self-understanding begins to conform to the logic of the machine. Artificial intelligence represents the culmination of this logic.
Human beings are no longer viewed primarily as citizens, moral agents, or members of communities. More and more, they appear as data points: predictable patterns of behaviour within vast computational systems. Every click, movement, emotion, preference, and hesitation become extractable information.
‘Human beings are no longer viewed primarily as citizens, moral agents, or members of communities. More and more, they appear as data points’
This transformation has given rise to what the scholar Shoshana Zuboff calls ‘surveillance capitalism’: a new economic and technological order built not simply on producing goods or services, but on harvesting human experience itself.
In this system, personal behaviour becomes what Zuboff terms ‘behavioral surplus’, the excess data generated by our actions, preferences, emotions, and routines, extracted as raw material for prediction and manipulation. What earlier industrial capitalism extracted from nature and human labour, surveillance capitalism now extracts from consciousness, attention, and everyday life.
What makes this development particularly significant is that AI systems do not merely observe behaviour; they increasingly shape it. Recommendation algorithms, predictive systems, social media architectures, and personalized digital environments are designed not simply to understand users, but to guide, nudge, and automate decision-making processes. As Zuboff notes: ‘the goal now is to automate us.’2
Such an erosion strikes at the heart of what conservatism has always sought to defend.
Conservatism, at its core, rests upon the belief that human beings are not reducible to economic functions or computational variables. Human life possesses moral depth, historical continuity, spiritual dimension, and communal embeddedness. A civilization survives not through technical efficiency alone, but through meaning, memory, responsibility, and inherited forms of order.
Yet the dominant logic of the digital age steadily pushes in the opposite direction. Algorithmic systems favour immediacy over contemplation, stimulation over wisdom, personalization over community, and behavioural management over moral autonomy. The individual becomes simultaneously hyper-visible and internally fragmented, constantly connected, yet increasingly detached from stable cultural and moral structures.
The irony is striking. Modern societies often celebrate AI as the triumph of rationality, while the same systems gradually erode the very conditions necessary for independent judgment and reflective thought.
This ontological crisis is perhaps best illustrated by the emergence of generative AI itself. Large language models are now capable of producing philosophical language, moral arguments, and even metaphysical reflections that imitate human discourse with astonishing fluency. The machine can simulate wisdom without possessing consciousness, intentionality, or lived experience.
This raises an uncomfortable question: if philosophical language can be automated, how much of modern intellectual life had already become formulaic before the machine arrived?
The French philosopher Jean Baudrillard argued that modern societies have begun replacing reality with simulations—representations detached from any authentic referent.3 AI intensifies this condition dramatically. We are entering an era in which the imitation of thought may become socially indistinguishable from thought itself.
The Korean German philosopher Byung-Chul Han extends this critique into the digital age. In The Transparency Society, Han argues that contemporary technological systems seek to eliminate opacity, distance, silence, and ambiguity in favour of total visibility and constant communication. Transparency, in this sense, no longer serves freedom but control. Digital society transforms individuals into willingly exposed subjects who continuously generate information about themselves through communication, self-display, and participation.
‘Digital society transforms individuals into willingly exposed subjects who continuously generate information about themselves’
In Psychopolitics, Han pushes this argument even further. Unlike older disciplinary systems based on coercion and prohibition, contemporary digital power now operates through seduction, self-calibration, and voluntary participation. Individuals believe themselves free while continuously adapting their behaviour to algorithmic systems of performance, visibility, and emotional validation. Under such conditions, domination no longer appears as external oppression, but as self-management.
The threat is not that machines suddenly become human. It is that humans gradually adapt themselves to the logic of machines.
The Architecture of Dependence
What begins as an anthropological transformation gradually reshapes geopolitical reality itself. AI is rapidly becoming a geopolitical infrastructure of power.
The 21st century will not simply be defined by control over territory or industrial capacity, but by control over data, computational architecture, semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, and systems of algorithmic coordination and behavioural forecasting. Whoever controls the infrastructures of artificial intelligence increasingly shapes not only markets, but information environments, strategic dependencies, and even political behaviour.
The rivalry between the United States and China already reflects this reality. AI has become inseparable from military planning, cyber operations, intelligence analysis, financial systems, media ecosystems, and industrial competitiveness. It is no coincidence that both great powers now treat semiconductors and AI-related supply chains as strategic assets comparable to energy resources or military-industrial capacity.
In this sense, AI is not merely a technological issue but a sovereignty issue.
Europe, meanwhile, finds itself in a difficult position. Despite regulatory ambition and ethical discourse, the continent remains structurally dependent on external technological ecosystems.
European societies rely overwhelmingly on American platforms, cloud systems, operating infrastructures, and ever more on non-European AI architectures. The question of ‘digital sovereignty’ is therefore no longer rhetorical. A political community that cannot control its informational infrastructure risks losing meaningful strategic autonomy.
Yet state sovereignty alone is insufficient if individuals themselves lose sovereignty over attention, perception, and judgment.
This may ultimately become the defining political struggle of the AI age: not simply the defence of borders, but the defence of human interiority.
‘State sovereignty alone is insufficient if individuals themselves lose sovereignty over attention, perception, and judgment’
The paradox of digital society is that there is no real exit from it. To withdraw completely from the digital sphere increasingly means social, economic, and even political marginalization. Yet full immersion carries its own dangers: permanent exposure, algorithmic dependence, cognitive exhaustion, and the gradual erosion of silence, contemplation, and inwardness. The individual risks becoming trapped between exclusion and dissolution—between irrelevance and total integration into the technological system.
The AI question therefore resists both technological utopianism and apocalyptic fatalism. Artificial intelligence undoubtedly offers powerful tools in fields ranging from medicine and logistics to scientific research and administration.
But the central question is no longer simply what AI can do for civilization. The more unsettling question concerns the kind of civilization that emerges once permanent connectivity, behavioural modelling, and technological mediation become its organizing principles.
Modern technological societies risk creating conditions in which human beings cease to exercise judgment independently, surrendering responsibility to systems, procedures, and impersonal technological structures. The danger is not merely external control. It is the possibility that the logic of the system becomes psychologically internalized—until efficiency replaces wisdom, visibility replaces interiority, and adaptation replaces freedom.
A society organized entirely around efficiency eventually forgets how to answer the most important human questions:
- What is worth protecting?
- What is freedom for?
- What does it mean to live a meaningful life?
- What remains uniquely human?
These are not engineering problems. They are philosophical questions.
And unless civilization rediscovers the courage to ask them seriously, the AI revolution may not culminate in the rise of intelligent machines, but in the slow disappearance of autonomous human beings.
- Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Translated by William Lovitt, New York, Harper & Row, 1977. ↩︎
- Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, New York, PublicAffairs, 2019, p. 17. ↩︎
- Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1994. ↩︎
Related articles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.
